About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
'm chris jansing. developing news from the white house. in 45 minutes we are expecting president obama to talk about the $85 billion in the harsh automatic budget cuts known as the sequester. he'll be in the south court auditorium of the white house with a group of first responders. those are the folks whose jobs are on the line if the president and congress don't reach a deal. >>> time is running out. the cuts would go into effect march 1st and congress in recess this week, it gives them five days to work out a deal once they get back. right now, democrats and republicans aren't even talking to each other about how to solve this sequester problem. >> the president gave a speech showing that he'd like to replace it but he hasn't put hi details out there. that's why i conclude it's going to take place. >> democrats have the high ground both substantively and politically and we will win on this issue. i believe just like on the fiscal cliff, republicans will come on board. >> the president promised it wouldn't happen. he's the commander in chief and on his watch, we're going to begin to
right now is president obama is insisting upon tax increases as part of the sequester agreement and you know how republicans view that. he is trying to get them to agree to two in a formal period and challenging thing for them to accept. at the same time, the president is urging and saying this affects the broader economy and the republicans acknowledge that but are not ready to go back to the negotiating table right now. >> ken, i guess the other point here is that, you know, if the sequester happens and, for example, in "the washington times" today, they talked about the ripple effect on defense contractors and the thousands of jobs that they are preparing to have layoffs for because of the threat of sequester. i mean, who gets the blame if the economy starts to tank? >> right. well, congress gets the blame more generally and that is what i think is sort of lost here in the jockeying, the positioning and pointing fingers at both sides. we already see historic negative approval ratings for congress. it's only going to get down to both parties detriment. however, i do think the presiden
>>> good morning. i'm chris jansing. a major reversal for the obama administration. the white house will brief lawmakers about drones. the administration will release classified documents about the legal justification for using drone strikes to kill american citizens. >> this is an encouraging first step, and especially because it comes at a time when the lines have blurred between the military and the intelligence field, and it's going to be so important to do robust congressional oversight in order to protect both our security and our liberty. >> senator widen is one of the senators who was pushing for the release of more noftion and it comes just hours before the confirmation hearing for john brennan. the white house counterterrorism adviser was the architect of the president's drone policy and one of its biggest defenders. >> it's this surgical precision, the ability with laser-like focus to eliminate the cancerous tumor called an al qaeda terrorist. >> i want to bring in "the washington post's" political reporter nia-malika henderson and politico's white house reporter carrie b
will not take away your rifle, shotgun, hand gun, they leafletted the country with flyers like this, obama's not going to take your gun, obama will protect gun rights, and now he's trying to take away all three. i don't think you can trust -- >> senate majority leader harry reid says he hopes gun legislation will come out of the judiciary committee but he was noncommittal over whether he would sign an assault weapons ban. >> would you vote for it? >> frankly, she knows, i haven't read her amendment, i didn't vote for the assault weapons last time because it didn't make sense but i'll take a look at it. >> i will bring in "washington post" columnist ruth marcus and senior staff writer for "the hill" alex bolton. good monday morning to both of you. ruth, this is the president's first big sell to the american people. what do you think he needs to say here? >> well, the president said he was going to give it everything he's got. i think what he needs to say is look, don't listen to the nra, listen to logic or listen to the nra from a number of years ago when it supported universal background c
think that's right. in president obama you had someone who campaigned in wanting to turn the page in terms of foreign policy from the bush doctrine, from the bush era policies, but in many ways has followed them and has been handed this entire security apparatus, this particular program began in 2004, about 400 strikes have happened so far. about 3,000 people have been killed, mostly pakistan, somali, yemen. but you have had this sort of deafening silence for the most part from progressives and liberals around this. you have had a few voices certainly on the hill and even on your network to raise questions about it, but by and large, the president has been given something of a pass. i think also the public has moved beyond this in some ways. there's a post-9/11 new normal in terms of how the public looks at the prosecution of this war on terror. they see it, it seems to me, as a vast war, an endless war in some ways that might be best prosecuted in this way rather than those large land wars we saw in afghanistan and iraq of this sort of pinpointed targeting of folks seem so far to
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)